7.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw.
8.  Since 1977 the applicant has suffered from severe myopia, the degree of which was established at -0.2 in the left eye and -0.8 in the right eye. Before her pregnancy, she was assessed by a State medical panel, for social-insurance purposes, as suffering from a disability of medium severity.
9.  The applicant became pregnant in February 2000. She had previously had two children, both born by Caesarean section. As the applicant was worried about the possible impact of the delivery on her health, she decided to consult her doctors. She was examined by three ophthalmologists (Dr M.S., Dr N.S.-B., Dr K.W.). It transpired from the documents submitted by the applicant that Dr M.S. had recommended that the applicant have frequent check-ups and avoid physical exertion. Dr N.S.-B. stated that the applicant should consider sterilisation after the birth. All of them concluded that, due to pathological changes in the applicant’s retina, the pregnancy and delivery constituted a risk to her eyesight. However, they refused to issue a certificate for the pregnancy to be terminated, despite the applicant’s requests, on the ground that the retina might detach itself as a result of pregnancy, but that it was not certain.
10.  Subsequently, the applicant sought further medical advice. On 20 April 2000 Dr O.R.G., a general practitioner (GP), issued a certificate stating that her third pregnancy constituted a threat to the applicant’s health as there was a risk of rupture of the uterus, given her two previous deliveries by Caesarean section. She further referred to the applicant’s short-sightedness and to significant pathological changes in her retina. These considerations, according to the GP, also required that the applicant should avoid physical strain which in any case would hardly be possible as at that time the applicant was raising two small children on her own. The applicant understood that on the basis of this certificate she would be able to terminate her pregnancy lawfully.
11.  On 14 April 2000, in the second month of the pregnancy, the applicant’s eyesight was examined. It was established that she needed glasses to correct her vision in both eyes by 24 dioptres.
12.  Subsequently, the applicant contacted a State hospital, the Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Warsaw, in the area to which she was assigned on the basis of her residence, with a view to obtaining the termination of her pregnancy. On 26 April 2000 she had an appointment with Dr R.D., Head of the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department of the clinic.
13.  Dr R.D. examined the applicant visually and for a period of less than five minutes, but did not examine her ophthalmological records. Afterwards he made a note on the back of the certificate issued by Dr O.R.G. that neither her short‑sightedness nor her two previous deliveries by Caesarean section constituted grounds for therapeutic termination of the pregnancy. He was of the view that, in these circumstances, the applicant should give birth by Caesarean section. During the applicant’s visit Dr R.D. consulted an endocrinologist, Dr B., whispering to her in the presence of the applicant. The endocrinologist co-signed the note written by Dr R.D., but did not talk to the applicant.
14.  The applicant’s examination was carried out in a room with the door open to the corridor, which, in the applicant’s submission, did not provide a comfortable environment for a medical examination. At the end of the appointment, Dr R.D. told the applicant that she could have as many as eight children if they were delivered by Caesarean section.
15.  As a result, the applicant’s pregnancy was not terminated. The applicant gave birth to the child by Caesarean section in November 2000.
16.  After the delivery, her eyesight deteriorated badly. On 2 January 2001, approximately six weeks after the delivery, she was taken to the emergency unit of the Ophthalmological Clinic in Warsaw. While doing a counting-fingers test, she was only able to see from a distance of three metres with her left eye and five metres with her right eye, whereas before the pregnancy she had been able to see objects from a distance of six metres. A reabsorbing vascular occlusion was found in her right eye and further degeneration of the retinal spot was established in the left eye.
17.  According to a medical certificate issued on 14 March 2001 by an ophthalmologist, the deterioration of the applicant’s eyesight had been caused by recent haemorrhages in the retina. As a result, the applicant is currently facing a risk of going blind. Dr M.S., the ophthalmologist who examined the applicant, suggested that she should be learning braille. She also informed the applicant that, as the changes to her retina were at a very advanced stage, there were no prospects of having them corrected by surgical intervention.
18.  On 13 September 2001 the disability panel declared the applicant to be significantly disabled, while previously she had been recognised as suffering from a disability of medium severity. It further held that she needed constant care and assistance in her everyday life.
19.  On 29 March 2001 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against Dr R.D., alleging that he had prevented her from having her pregnancy terminated as recommended by the GP on a medical ground which constituted one of the exceptions to a general ban on abortion. She complained that, following the pregnancy and delivery, she had sustained severe bodily harm by way of almost complete loss of her eyesight. She relied on Article 156 § 1 of the Criminal Code, which lays down the penalty for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm, and also submitted that, under the applicable provisions of social-insurance law, she was not entitled to a disability pension as she had not worked the requisite number of years before the disability developed because she had been raising her children.
20.  The investigation of the applicant’s complaint was carried out by the Warsaw-Śródmieście district prosecutor. The prosecutor heard evidence from the ophthalmologists who had examined the applicant during her pregnancy. They stated that a safe delivery by Caesarean section had been possible.
21.  The prosecutor further requested the preparation of an expert report by a panel of three medical experts (ophthalmologist, gynaecologist and specialist in forensic medicine) from the Białystok Medical Academy. According to the report, the applicant’s pregnancies and deliveries had not affected the deterioration of her eyesight. Given the serious nature of the applicant’s sight impairment, the risk of retinal detachment had always been present and continued to exist, and the pregnancy and delivery had not contributed to increasing that risk. Furthermore, the experts found that in the applicant’s case there had been no factors militating against the applicant’s carrying her baby to term and delivering it.
22.  During the investigations neither Dr R.D. nor Dr B., who had co‑signed the certificate of 26 April 2000, were interviewed.
23.  On 31 December 2001 the district prosecutor discontinued the investigations, considering that Dr R.D. had no case to answer. Having regard to the expert report, the prosecutor found that there was no causal link between his actions and the deterioration of the applicant’s vision. He observed that this deterioration “had not been caused by the gynaecologist’s actions, or by any other human action”.
24.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Warsaw regional prosecutor. She challenged the report drawn up by the experts from the Białystok Medical Academy. In particular, she submitted that she had in fact been examined by only one of the experts, namely the ophthalmologist, whereas the report was signed by all of them. During that examination use had not been made of all the specialised ophthalmological equipment that would normally be used to test the applicant’s eyesight. Moreover, the examination had lasted only ten minutes. The other two experts who had signed the report, including a gynaecologist, had not examined her at all.
25.  She further emphasised inconsistencies in the report. She also submitted that, before the second and third deliveries, the doctors had recommended that she be sterilised during the Caesarean section to avoid any further pregnancies. She argued that, although the deterioration of her eyesight was related to her condition, she felt that the process of deterioration had accelerated during the third pregnancy. She submitted that there had been a causal link between the refusal to terminate her pregnancy and the deterioration of her vision. The applicant also complained that the prosecuting authorities had failed to give any consideration to the certificate issued by her GP.
26.  She further pointed out that she had been unable to familiarise herself with the case file because the summaries of witnesses’ testimonies and other documents were written in a highly illegible manner. The prosecutor, when asked for assistance in reading the file, had repeatedly refused to assist, even though he had been aware that the applicant was suffering from very severe myopia. The applicant had been unable to read the documents in the case file, which had affected her ability to exercise her procedural rights in the course of the investigation.
27.  On 21 March 2002 the Warsaw regional prosecutor, in a one-paragraph decision, upheld the decision of the district prosecutor, finding that the latter’s conclusions had been based on the expert report. The regional prosecutor countered the applicant’s argument that she had not been examined by all three experts, stating that the other two experts had relied on an examination of her medical records. He did not address the procedural issue raised by the applicant in her appeal.
28.  Subsequently, the decision not to prosecute was transmitted to the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court for judicial review.
29.  In a final decision of 2 August 2002, not subject to a further appeal and numbering twenty-three lines, the District Court upheld the decision to discontinue the case. Having regard to the medical expert report, the court considered that the refusal to terminate the pregnancy had not had a bearing on the deterioration of the applicant’s vision. Furthermore, the court found that the haemorrhage in the applicant’s eyes had in any event been likely to occur, given the degree and nature of the applicant’s condition. The court did not address the procedural complaint which the applicant had made in her appeal against the decision of the district prosecutor.
30.  The applicant also attempted to bring disciplinary proceedings against Dr R.D. and Dr B. However, those proceedings were finally discontinued on 19 June 2002, the competent authorities of the Chamber of Physicians finding that there had been no professional negligence.
31.  Currently, the applicant can see objects only from a distance of approximately 1.5 metres and is afraid of going blind. On 11 January 2001 the social-welfare centre issued a certificate to the effect that the applicant was unable to take care of her children as she could not see from a distance of more than 1.5 metres. On 28 May 2001 a medical panel gave a decision certifying that she suffered from a significant disability. She is at present unemployed and in receipt of a monthly disability pension of 560 Polish zlotys. She is raising her three children alone.